I’m playing a ‘Barbarossa’ campaign against the AI as a learning exercise, and would welcome some comments and guidance. Probably much of what I write below will be real noobie stuff, so try not to laugh too loud!

My basic strategic plan is to try to take out Leningrad with modest normal AGN forces. On first move, I was able to take Riga.

More detail is that I intend to cut off supply to Leningrad by swinging my armor east of Pskov, and then heading north to the east of Leningrad with the idea of cutting it off and supply strangling it before taking it. I left modest infantry behind to clear Courland and area near Tallinn after cutting Red supplies in those areas. They are coming up behind the armor spearheads.

I am beefing up AGC for a big push on Moscow by shifting 1st Panzer Group to it north of Pripyt and away from AGS. Minsk fell on second move, but I did not get much in the way of a pocket.

After Leningrad falls, I’ll swing those AGN and any available Finn forces east and north of Moscow to join the AGC push on it.

AGS is going to be left on its own to push to the east south of Pripyt, but I’m Ok if its slow going. If Moscow falls and there are still significant Red forces south of Pripyt, I’ll try for a big pocket in the south, but only after Moscow is surrounded or falls.

This is pretty similar to original plan, except I’ve stripped armor from AGS and given it to AGC.

Good results on air attacks – I’ve killed about 3500 Red planes.

I’m doing pretty well pushing rail conversions out to Riga and toward Minsk and beyond.

Comments on the overall plan?

As to some more questions I have, any guidance would be welcome.

I shuffled my command structure in move 3 [which is still in process]. I couldn’t figure out what else to do with Admin Points. So, I sacked Halder, Bock took over OKH, and Manstein now has AGC and Guderian AGN. Rundstedt stays at AGS. Does this make sense? If so, why, if not, why not?

I can’t figure out how to change the HQ for 1st Panzer Group I’m stealing from AGS to make it report to AGC. What am I missing? Its probably really simple.

I played the ‘Road to Leningrad’ scenario as Germans, and the Finland forces activated after a couple of turns and were hugely helpful – but I don’t know why it happened. When should I expect it to happen – if at all – in this scenario? Manual doesn’t seem to say. Is a ‘turn on’ of the Finns triggered by AGN getting close to Leningrad? And I do know about the ‘no attack’ and ‘no advance’ lines.

I can’t tell what is the effect on ‘air attacks on airfields’ results from moving the airfields closer to the front at the end of the prior turn. So, if I use my airfield attacks at the start of my turn, then have a big push forward of ground units, move their HQs in to good supply spots, and then move up airfields to get them closer to the enemy [with air HQ/supply moves as well], what is that doing to the air unit operational capacity on next turn? I can’t figure it out from Manual or observation.

If there are ‘routed’ Red units, Red HQs and Red airfields, does it make sense to send a smaller very mobile unit chasing them around and ‘zapping’ them by moving next to them? I’ve been doing that, but I’m not sure that is the best approach.

Finally, a single turn seems to take an enormous amount of clock time in a scenario like this with the full front from the Baltic to the Black Sea. I never finish a whole turn in a single sitting – I tend to do Air stuff, then one Army group in a sitting, saving and exiting after each group. How long in clock time does it take an experienced player to do a whole turn in a full front scenario? I have great doubts I would ever play the whole 41-45 campaign – it’s a career!

In any event, I’m having fun and will thank in advance anyone who comments. Ole AHer

You need every single AP point you get for the first 3-5 turns just shuffling support units around to HQ's and such. Takes me about 5 turns to get everything the way I want it.

Armor from AGS, ouch. That might hurt you long term. The Russian units in the south are the strongest you face at start. Don't think I ever seen anyone try that move before. Post screen shots so we can better see what is going on.

Print screen, open MSpaint or another, paste and save, then upload it here.

First of all, I mainly (almost exclusively) play the Russians, so any advice is.....Well, questionable is a mite strong, but take it with a grain of salt

The Finns are released on Turns 3 and 4 IIRC, no matter how close AGN is to Leningrad. (Might be Turns 4 & 5....)

Routed Reds units are money in the bank. Don't 'zap' them, but create pockets and force them to surrender. While the losses you get from constantly displacing them is nice, it's more important to kill counters. Anything killed before Nov. ´41 gets resurrected for free, but that's 11 weeks down the line. If the Russian bear has no counters to put them in, it matters little if he has 2 million men in the replacement pool. Granted, STAVKA won't run dry during ´41, but generally killing counters is more important than killing men.

If you can't get the 1st PG HQ to report to AGC, it's presumably because you don't have enough APs to make the change. Switching an entire PG has a pretty steep price in APs, and if you don't have enough, the option simply won't be listed.

I don't think there's any penalty 'carried over' to the next turn when moving air-groups. Far as I know, moving them will affect the flying during the same turn, but now the next. Having said that, the air-system is mostly a sweet mystery to me, so there's a pretty good chance that I'm spectacularly wrong.

As for how long a turn takes....It gets better with practice.....Or at least faster. In the beginning I spent something like 3-4 hours on the opening turns. Now I'm pretty sure what I want to do, and how to do it, so somewhere between 90 mins and 2 hours for the first turns is probably about average.

Finally, The Plan...... I'm with 2ndACR here. The south has a vast number of Sov armored/motorized units that needs to be killed ASAP. Leaving the sector to infantry and the ..*ahem*... 'gallant Romanians' is asking for trouble.

_____________________________

"Something is always wrong, Baldrick. The fact that I'm not a millionaire aristocrat with the sexual capacity of a rutting rhino is a constant niggle" - Edmund Blackadder

Go for the weak south strategy - few if any do so it will be interesting to see how it works. If you did this against a human, he/she would be tempted to push to knock Rumania out in the blizzard if your advance was very poor. I consider the Crimea must take as Axis ( most don't however), as it becomes a ulcer. Also, the Sovs can't do amphib attacks past high port value Axis ports. Make any Motorized Div you can surrender. Avoid even attacking them until they are Isolated - think kryptonite. You want their 'stuff'.

If you did this against a human player I think you'd get your backside handed to you big time.Your massed panzer corps would get to the land bridge and the upper Dnieper to find most of SW front stood there laughing at them.The way the game is setup, it's essential that SW front is smashed in the first month of the war simply because it can be. It may be possible to have a stab at it if you use one or two panzer divisions from 1st pz group to cut the Soviet rail lines South of Tarnopol or run right down to the Rumanian border.The aim here would be a limited Lvov pocket and to delay SW front's evacuation rather than to destroy it.Without the rest of 1st pz group that would be unlikely.Huge amounts of SW front would still get railed North though.

I appreciate the interesting comments. I also do appreciate that playing against an experienced human opponent with full FOW etc is very different than than running a test game against the AI. It's a learning experience, right?

BTW, it appears the Finns turn on automatically on turn 4.

Also BTW, I have no idea how one does a 'screen shot' to include in a post here. I probably wqon't do any, but I'm curious how it is done. TIA.

A philosophic query - is this really a game, or is it an extraordinary and extremely detailed historical simulation? It's hard to comprehend how long in calendar / clock time it would take to play a larger campaign / scenario out even if by PBEM against an air breather. Months, if you actually have a life? A year or more? Can something with a 400+ page manual really be considered a game? What's the longest time it's taken anyone to complete a game? I'm just curious.

I taught my 6 year old grandson how to play chess in less than an hour with no book once he asked what the pieces etc were. He can set up the board, knows how to move the pieces, understands the object, can play it on the computer against ChessTitans, etc. He's no Bobby Fischer, but he's smart enough to realize I'm tanking to him, but tells me he thinks he could beat his grandmother 'even if she was trying'.. [She was not pleased....]. Clearly, that's a game. I'm very impressed with what Grigsby and his crew have done here - but I'm not sure what it is. What do you guys [and gals?] think?

Thanks in advance for any shared thoughts. And I am having fun so far ...

If you get an opportunity to disrupt an enemy airfield you might want to consider striking it first to generate some damaged planes at the air field. Then when you disrupt the air fleid you destroy all the damaged planes. Just a thought.

ORIGINAL: Ole AHer It's hard to comprehend how long in calendar / clock time it would take to play a larger campaign / scenario out even if by PBEM against an air breather. Months, if you actually have a life? A year or more? Can something with a 400+ page manual really be considered a game? What's the longest time it's taken anyone to complete a game? I'm just curious.

I run at about an average of 90 minutes per turn for 1941, and 60 minutes (30 minutes or less for mud/quiet turns) after. That's about 150-200 hours play time for a 41-45 grand campaign. If one did 10 turns a week, you'd get a full game within a month.

quote:

I'm very impressed with what Grigsby and his crew have done here - but I'm not sure what it is. What do you guys [and gals?] think?

Different people have different opinions. Some call it a game, some a simulation, and if you poke around here enough you might get one or two telling you that it's a Soviet fanboy's wetdream, manufactured in conspiracy by a group of rednecks, who's sole purpose in life is to nerf any remotely historical German capability, in order to babysit whinning Soviet carebears. I don't quite see the connection between rednecks and the Soviets, but apparently it's there if you repeat it to yourself enough...

For me, it's halfway between a game and simulation, too detailed to be called a game, not accurate enough to be a true simulation. All 'wargames' have to deal with such compromises.

I appreciate the interesting comments. I also do appreciate that playing against an experienced human opponent with full FOW etc is very different than than running a test game against the AI. It's a learning experience, right?

Indeed. With the added bonus of the WitE AI being the best I've seen in a PC game, bar none. Yes, an experienced player will beat it, but you'll have to think while doing so. Can't just go through the motions.

quote:

Also BTW, I have no idea how one does a 'screen shot' to include in a post here. I probably wqon't do any, but I'm curious how it is done. TIA.

Easy. Hit 'PrtScr', and your screenshot is saved to your clip-board. Next, open Paint (or whatever graphics-program you have handy), select Paste, and hey presto. After that you can crop, add arrows, frontlines and what not to your hearts delight.

quote:

A philosophic query - is this really a game, or is it an extraordinary and extremely detailed historical simulation? It's hard to comprehend how long in calendar / clock time it would take to play a larger campaign / scenario out even if by PBEM against an air breather. Months, if you actually have a life? A year or more? Can something with a 400+ page manual really be considered a game? What's the longest time it's taken anyone to complete a game? I'm just curious.

I taught my 6 year old grandson how to play chess in less than an hour with no book once he asked what the pieces etc were. He can set up the board, knows how to move the pieces, understands the object, can play it on the computer against ChessTitans, etc. He's no Bobby Fischer, but he's smart enough to realize I'm tanking to him, but tells me he thinks he could beat his grandmother 'even if she was trying'.. [She was not pleased....]. Clearly, that's a game. I'm very impressed with what Grigsby and his crew have done here - but I'm not sure what it is. What do you guys [and gals?] think?

It's a historical and extremely detailed game. It's not unlike the chess-analogy. In theory you can learn the basics about how units move, and simply have at it. You'll lose (rather quickly too), but it's possible. If you want to be good at it though, you'll need to learn how all the different factors inter-act, how to design a strategic plan that extends beyond just this turn, etc. etc. And as with all PC games there's a certain amount of 'fudging' and abstractions going on.

As for a CG against another human, it'll take a while. Last game I played ended with my surrender in Aug. ´43, and that took about a year IIRC. Granted, that was a slow-burn game with a lot of real-life upsets in it. If you can get a good rhythm going, with 3-4 turns a week, a complete 220 turn game should take you the same amount of time. And don't forget, the first few games will probably end much sooner than ´45, simply because either one of you will have screwed up so badly during the learning process, that a reset is in order.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Schmart

.....and if you poke around here enough you might get one or two telling you that it's a Soviet fanboy's wetdream, manufactured in conspiracy by a group of rednecks, who's sole purpose in life is to nerf any remotely historical German capability, in order to babysit whinning Soviet carebears. I don't quite see the connection between rednecks and the Soviets, but apparently it's there if you repeat it to yourself enough...

_____________________________

"Something is always wrong, Baldrick. The fact that I'm not a millionaire aristocrat with the sexual capacity of a rutting rhino is a constant niggle" - Edmund Blackadder

Well, some good stuff in my exercise, but some bad, too - and turns take so long to do I can't ever see myself signing up for a play by email. Its a great simulation, but tough to 'play' because of the level of detail... A couple of comments [no screen shots] as to how its going. Any comments and thoughts from my more experienced betters would be welcome - and I appreciate those already posted.

I'm up to the first snow against Russkie AI on the easy setting [its a learning experience]. I've was able to take the last Leningrad hex [in the second mud turn - non-randomweather].

I also have taken Kiev, Moscow and Kharkov. After Moscow fell, I was able to close a huge pocket south and west of Moscow, locking down at Veronezh and killed 114 Red units in one turn. However, my score isn't so hot - I've gotten about 400K Krauts killed, even though I've killed over 4 Million godless commies.

The worst thing in my score is that I killed 10K CCCP planes, but lost 2K myself - largely letting the AI run the air base attacks and pushing them hard. This has cost me a lot of points.

When its the Russkie AI turn, none of her aerial supply drops ever get shot down. I don't have a Partisan problem - I'm fully garrisoned, but is there something I can do to shoot down a couple of those transports? I feel completely out of it with the air war.

It seems to me that in this scenario the Kraut gets very little points for capturing key locations like Moscow, etc - everything is on kill counts. I suppose that's Ok, but it dictates how you would have to play. The strat-egery section in the manual sort of says that, but still, gaining important cities should count for more - or should it?

I still don't have a decent handle on what to do with admin points. I've shuffled my command and reports, built a lot of fortified zones, and still have several hundred. I'm clearly missing the boat on this. The Russkie AI is using almost all hers up - but I'm not sure what she is actually doing with them.

A couple of observations. While true Grognards revel in micro managment, I have zero interest in building railroads [no Sid Meier Railroad Tycoon here] and keeping track of those 0-16 road gangs and moving them every turn. Ditto on sorting out HQs to maintain supply. ZZZZZZ. So, if GG and his buds want to make this more 'playable' for the non-hard core, mayhaps there should be a magic button that automatically optimizes that kind of stuff - rail, APs, HQs - maybe even between air-breather opponents if they so agree.

I'm very ambivalent about WITE. I'm impressed with its technical virtuosity, but have huge doubts I want to spend the kind of time it demands. In some ways I'd like to check back to the old AH days, playing quick games of 3 to 5 hours across the table of Afrika Korps, Waterloo, Battle of the Bulge, my favorite, Stalingrad [which, BTW, between equal opponents, the Reds usually won...]. No comparability to the quality of this product, but those by-gone days were fun never the less.

I note that some other Reports Strings on this forum note that players against the AI can pretty much make a scenario or campaign come out any way they want based on the settings they use. Seems right. Equivalent of a 'cheat' in an RPG or first person shooter?

Others sort of complain that in an 'even' game between 2 air breathers, the Russkies are very likely to win the larger scenarios/campaigns. Well, they did, didn't they? Underlying German real world strategic intelligence was awful, grossly underestimating CCCP resources and capacities - where did those T-34 and Siberians come from? - so they probably were doomed pretty much from the start. After all, the Krauts pretty much achieved their 1941 strategic objective by killing or capturing almost all the 3 million Reds lined up in the West on 22 June, and it got them nowhere. They kicked in the door, but the whole rotten ediface didn't come down. Too bad for you, 'dolph..

So, if an equal game between competent opponents comes out that way, doesn't it mean the game is really well designed? But if so, why play it?

Anyway, I'll look forward to seeing if anyone shares any other thoughts. TIA!

I'm up to the first snow against Russkie AI on the easy setting [its a learning experience]. I've was able to take the last Leningrad hex [in the second mud turn - non-randomweather].

Eeerr..Why? With non-random weather, and assuming you had Leningrad cut-off from the rest of the front, why attack in Mud? There'll be 4 turns of Snow before the blizzard where the CVs return to normal, and once the RR link to the city is cut, replacements for the Russians have a hard time getting through.

quote:

When its the Russkie AI turn, none of her aerial supply drops ever get shot down. I don't have a Partisan problem - I'm fully garrisoned, but is there something I can do to shoot down a couple of those transports? I feel completely out of it with the air war.

Probably not. Supply-drops are done using night-flying, and IIRC there aren't any night-fighters available yet. Not sure though, since I don't really get the air-system either nor do I play the Axis very much. Hopefully one of the Teutonic Trackheads can answer that one.

quote:

It seems to me that in this scenario the Kraut gets very little points for capturing key locations like Moscow, etc - everything is on kill counts. I suppose that's Ok, but it dictates how you would have to play. The strat-egery section in the manual sort of says that, but still, gaining important cities should count for more - or should it?

Happens to be one of my pet peeves too, but it is what it is. And don't forget, even if you don't get the 290 points for an auto-victory (which you won't), taking cities cuts down the Russian manpower-pool. Losing Moscow might not cost the Russian the game, but it'll cost him around 30K replacements each turn.....It all adds up.

quote:

I still don't have a decent handle on what to do with admin points. I've shuffled my command and reports, built a lot of fortified zones, and still have several hundred. I'm clearly missing the boat on this. The Russkie AI is using almost all hers up - but I'm not sure what she is actually doing with them.

She (he?) is reorganizing the Red Army. Unlike the Wehrmacht the Red Army is a bloody shambles in ´41. Not only is it spread to hell and gone after the initial invasion, it also moves from Corps to Armies, and there are 2-3 new Fronts getting established in the first year. Then there's the leader-shuffle, trying to get rid of at least SOME of the crummy leaders that abounds, plus the total rebuilding of the Sov airforce. Suffice it to say that the Russians never have enough APs to do what is needed. On the other hand, once the German player has reorganized his army to his liking, there's very little to do with those APs aside from building fortification-lines. Again, I have limited experience with the Axis, but I don't think you're missing anything.

quote:

A couple of observations. While true Grognards revel in micro managment, I have zero interest in building railroads [no Sid Meier Railroad Tycoon here] and keeping track of those 0-16 road gangs and moving them every turn. Ditto on sorting out HQs to maintain supply. ZZZZZZ. So, if GG and his buds want to make this more 'playable' for the non-hard core, mayhaps there should be a magic button that automatically optimizes that kind of stuff - rail, APs, HQs - maybe even between air-breather opponents if they so agree.

I'm very ambivalent about WITE. I'm impressed with its technical virtuosity, but have huge doubts I want to spend the kind of time it demands. In some ways I'd like to check back to the old AH days, playing quick games of 3 to 5 hours across the table of Afrika Korps, Waterloo, Battle of the Bulge, my favorite, Stalingrad [which, BTW, between equal opponents, the Reds usually won...]. No comparability to the quality of this product, but those by-gone days were fun never the less.

Well, it's a GG game....... So there's a ton of detail, most of it being kinda important. As to whether some of it could be automated for the non-hardcore, I think it's more a question of whether the non-hardcore should pick up this game. This isn't meant as any sort of slight to people who don't 'get' this game, just pointing out that people enjoy different things. Personally I still think that anyone who plays WITP:AE recreationally has a weird definition of 'fun' And I'll agree that the old D Elim games were fun, can't even count the number of times I've played AHs "The Russian Campaign". But given the capabilities of the modern PCs, this sort of over-simplification is probably gone for good

quote:

Others sort of complain that in an 'even' game between 2 air breathers, the Russkies are very likely to win the larger scenarios/campaigns. Well, they did, didn't they? Underlying German real world strategic intelligence was awful, grossly underestimating CCCP resources and capacities - where did those T-34 and Siberians come from? - so they probably were doomed pretty much from the start. After all, the Krauts pretty much achieved their 1941 strategic objective by killing or capturing almost all the 3 million Reds lined up in the West on 22 June, and it got them nowhere. They kicked in the door, but the whole rotten ediface didn't come down. Too bad for you, 'dolph..

So, if an equal game between competent opponents comes out that way, doesn't it mean the game is really well designed? But if so, why play it?

Because if I didn't play this game, I'd have to go about getting myself a life. Seriously though, you're right that the chances of changing history are (more or less) non-existant. The Auto-victory levels are well nigh impossible to achieve, so the war will take the usual route. Germanic mayhem in ´41, and most of ´42, after which the tide changes and the Red steam-roller goes to work. However, you're wrong in assuming that the Russians will win the larger campaigns. Yes, they'll win in the sense that they'll murder the Wehrmacht and take Berlin, given enough time......The question becomes if they can get through the early years with enough force to make it in time. All depends on what you consider 'winning'

_____________________________

"Something is always wrong, Baldrick. The fact that I'm not a millionaire aristocrat with the sexual capacity of a rutting rhino is a constant niggle" - Edmund Blackadder

ORIGINAL: CheerfullyInsane Well, it's a GG game....... So there's a ton of detail, most of it being kinda important. As to whether some of it could be automated for the non-hardcore, I think it's more a question of whether the non-hardcore should pick up this game. This isn't meant as any sort of slight to people who don't 'get' this game, just pointing out that people enjoy different things. Personally I still think that anyone who plays WITP:AE recreationally has a weird definition of 'fun' ....

Because if I didn't play this game, I'd have to go about getting myself a life.

Hear, hear! A guy I used to play across the board many moons ago, Bruce Zaccagnino, kind of epitomizes the overwhelming detail that thrills the true grognard. He became a successful computer game designer [Perfect General series] and then went on to build the world's biggest model train 'display' - over 8 miles long! See the link so you can visit it in New Jersey:

I appreciate the interesting comments. I also do appreciate that playing against an experienced human opponent with full FOW etc is very different than than running a test game against the AI. It's a learning experience, right?

BTW, it appears the Finns turn on automatically on turn 4.

Also BTW, I have no idea how one does a 'screen shot' to include in a post here. I probably wqon't do any, but I'm curious how it is done. TIA.

A philosophic query - is this really a game, or is it an extraordinary and extremely detailed historical simulation? It's hard to comprehend how long in calendar / clock time it would take to play a larger campaign / scenario out even if by PBEM against an air breather. Months, if you actually have a life? A year or more? Can something with a 400+ page manual really be considered a game? What's the longest time it's taken anyone to complete a game? I'm just curious.

I taught my 6 year old grandson how to play chess in less than an hour with no book once he asked what the pieces etc were. He can set up the board, knows how to move the pieces, understands the object, can play it on the computer against ChessTitans, etc. He's no Bobby Fischer, but he's smart enough to realize I'm tanking to him, but tells me he thinks he could beat his grandmother 'even if she was trying'.. [She was not pleased....]. Clearly, that's a game. I'm very impressed with what Grigsby and his crew have done here - but I'm not sure what it is. What do you guys [and gals?] think?

Thanks in advance for any shared thoughts. And I am having fun so far ...

Ole AHer

See my post #2 up top.......use the post reply button and not the fast reply, hit embed and just upload the pick here.